Ulysses S. Grant in Command

October 25, 2009

in Civil War Culture, Memory

JustineLaiWhile looking through some “sexually explicit” images related to the Civil War I came across this interesting collection by artist, Justine Lai.  The artist is based in San Francisco.  Lai has this to say about her first Online exhibit titled, “Join or Die”:

In Join Or Die, I paint myself having sex with the Presidents of the United States in chronological order. I am interested in humanizing and demythologizing the Presidents by addressing their public legacies and private lives. The presidency itself is a seemingly immortal and impenetrable institution; by inserting myself in its timeline, I attempt to locate something intimate and mortal. I use this intimacy to subvert authority, but it demands that I make myself vulnerable along with the Presidents. A power lies in rendering these patriarchal figures the possible object of shame, ridicule and desire, but it is a power that is constantly negotiated.

You can find the rest of the collection here.  Of course, if you are easily offended or of Puritan descent I would refrain from clicking through and move on.  Although I don’t find this to be that interesting, I am always struck by the ways we choose to remember our collective past.  I guess it gives new meaning to the widely held belief that the public is constantly getting screwed by the government.

  • st
  • Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure that I ever said that I teach the history of pornography in my classes. What I did say is that various aspects of gender/sexuality are discussed. In my women's history course we read Gloria Steinem's "When I Was a Playboy Bunny", which is based on her experience at the Heffner home.

    Of course, I understand that these are sensitive issues. However, there is room for debate, including Lai's belief that what she is doing is in fact art and not pornography. Like I said, I don't believe that Lai's work is best understood as pornography.
  • st
  • Shane Christen
    It is not a history teachers job to teach sexuality. Calling porn an art disguises nothing, it is still porn.
  • First, I wasn't commenting on the exhibit as a history teacher per se. With all due respect, this comment is absurd. I teach an entire course on the history of gender and a great deal of the course revolves around evolving assumptions about sexuality. How else am I supposed to introduce activists such as Margaret Sanger or discuss the history surrounding the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade? Perhaps you should explain what you mean here.
  • Shane Christen
    Kevin, I was unaware that you also teach a course on the history of gender. With that simple bit of information the entire purpose of the original thread makes sense to me. Without that to add to the context all I could see was a history teacher commenting on porn thinly disgused as art. This is not the "Rise of Venus" or classical art but far less artistic... stuff. With the context of a history of gender or such course it makes sense to me. In that context I'm not looking at a history teacher and wondering why he's bringing porn into the classroom anymore.

    Frankly, if my child brought home information from her HS history teacher involving any of these images or any that remotely resembled them I would be at that teacher, principle or superintendents office within the hour demanding an explanation. I rather expect that most places in the US such material in a non university classroom would get the teacher in some hot water. Handing it to teenaged HS students would land many a teacher in serious trouble if not outright cost them their job.

    That's just my two cents.
  • Thanks for the follow-up. I agree 100% that this is not good art, but at the same time I don't consider it to be pornography either. Please keep in mind that I am not showing these images in my classroom. My blog is a place for me to talk about my interest in the Civil War as well as my teaching, but the two rarely get mixed. That said, some of my students do read my blog and I am more than happy to have a serious discussion with them about the content. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
  • st
  • st
  • Shane Christen
    Sherree Tannen; thank you for a superb response put in far kinder vhein than I might. It's porn disguised as bad art. It has no educational value. I'm not easily offended or of puritan descent but I do have to wonder why it's here if not to shock people and get a response. Porn of any kind has no place on an educators computer.
  • Whether it is bad art is up to the viewer, but in calling this pornography it seems to me we run the risk of collapsing some important distinctions when it comes to our understanding of sexuality.
  • st
  • st
  • Art student seeks to shock, craves attention. Full report at 11.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Followed by "Fox News Investigates: Do Your Tax Dollars Support This?"
  • Name
    Is part of the discomfort seeing much older men naked? (Although Fillmore does seem cuddly). I don't think there's much evidence of any fetish on the artist's part, it's all pretty conventional.

    It's odd about sex and violence. Any teacher could use a film showing a man's head being blown off, but sexual content is verboten. The pornography of violence is OK, pornography not so much.

    Matt
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    The images don't make me feel uncomfortable. I just don't think it's very effective. Now, if spanking's "conventional", then I'm out of step, and prefer to remain so. :)
  • woodrowfan
    I'm just happy she seems to have left out Taft! Oye! Now if we can just get this artist and Mort Kunstler to combine their talents!
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    I always love how some artists explain their work. I could offer a different explanation of what her art says about her imagination and creative activity. Eye of the beholder and all that ...

    Still ... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BZFYe98kpkk/SIZnHJp0T...
  • I hear you Brooks. Why can't the artist simply admit that she enjoys being spanked and has an oral fetish for Lincoln. It would make things much easier for all of us.
  • Brooks D. Simpson
    Well, let's put it this way ... artists are inspired by many things. But, in truth, her explanation is nonsense to me. I'm sure I'll be told I just don't understand, but I don't get the message she's sending, and I'd love to interview her on why she chose to portray this president this way, another president the other way, and how it came to be that she could imagine being with, say, James Buchanan. :)

    I'm sure, for example, that Americans treat Franklin Pierce and John Tyler with such honor and respect that we'd never recognize their faults. More likely, Americans would not recognize either one of them, period. But to each her own, I say.
  • I am pretty tolerant when it comes to art and the explanations that artists provide. I will consider pretty much anything. Still, I don't get the sense that there was much thought behind this particular exhibit. My first thought was, "oh another artist working to undermine and tendency to mythologize certain public figures. There is no reason to believe that this artist knows much of anything about some of the less popular presidents depicted here. It would be a mistake to reduce this down to a matter of shock value, but we shouldn't spend too much time dwelling on its meaning.
  • Eric A. Jacobson
    I never knew Millard Fillmore was such a rascal.
  • Michael Lynch
    My eyes! My eyes!

    --ML
  • Matt McKeon
    Were these part of the 3500 images Lashster was viewing?

    I saw these on boingboing some time ago. Actually I don't see Grant as a spanker, seeing his desire not to humilate people one of his more attractive traits.

    Matt McKeon
  • Graham
    Are you familiar with the work of artist Kara Walker? If not, you should really check it out.
  • Absolutely. In fact, here is a link to her work: http://learn.walkerart.org/karawalker
  • Lizzie
    Yikes. Talk about ruining ones lofty vision of our presidents. :'-(!

    Haha, but I do like your particular choice of words here : "I guess it gives new meaning to the widely held belief that the public is constantly getting screwed by the government."
  • donshaffer
    Where do you find this stuff, Kevin?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: